The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

What does Cameron think about the death penalty?

Parliament could soon debate capital punishment but what does the PM think?

By George Eaton Published 01 August 2011 12:12

Parliament hasn't voted on the death penalty since 1994 but that could be about to change with the launch of the government's e-petitions site. The site promises that any petition that receives at least 100,000 signatures will be "eligible for debate in the House of Commons".

Guido Fawkes has submitted a petition to reinstate the death penalty for "the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty." So far, he's won the public support of three Conservative MPs - Philip Davies, Priti Patel and Andrew Turner. Davies said: "It's something where once again the public are a long way ahead of the politicians. I'd go further and restore it for all murderers."

With this in mind, I thought it was worth investigating what David Cameron has had to say on the subject. The PM is opposed to capital punishment but does not regard it as an "unacceptable" view for Conservative MPs to hold. He told Dylan Jones, the author of Cameron on Cameron:

[I]f someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don't honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.

If, like me, you regard capital punishment as state murder, you should relish the prospect of a Parliamentary debate on the subject - the best arguments are on our side. The death penalty is not a deterrent (the US murder rate has risen, not fallen, since the penalty was restored in 1976), it can lead to the death of innocents, and it has a brutalising effect on society. As George Bernard Shaw put it: "It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind."

The last time Parliament voted on the subject the death penalty was rejected by 403 votes to 159. A separate attempt to restore the penalty for the murder of a police officer was rejected by 383 votes to 186. The public, by contrast, continue to support capital punishment, although in diminishing numbers. A YouGov poll in September 2010 found that 51 per cent supported the death penalty for murder, with 37 per cent opposed.

So long as Britain remains a member of the European Union there is little prospect of the return of capital punishment - it is illegal under EU law. But this is a debate, one suspects, that will run and run.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Capital Punishment David Cameron

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

56 comments

Tue, 2011-08-02 09:09 — Cathy (not verified)

I cannot believe the comments I've read...So many people condoning murder...To take someone elses life is murder whether done in the name of justice or not...very simplistically- 2 wrongs donot make a right- and noone should have the right to take another persons life...

Tue, 2011-08-02 09:50 — Span Ows (not verified)

@Just Me
And it's 'its' not 'it's'

Quite right, how annoying. ;-)

"Know"? Simple, but I'm not telling you (LOL) In fact I know a thing or two about prisons in more than one country.

And "I would say how a country treats it's pensioners compared to how it treats it's prisoners is a very good indicator of what NOT to do" is not actually coherent. Care to rephrase? Yes, thank you. I was answering Moist Brain: should read soemthing like "I would say if a country treats its pensioners worse than it treats its prisoners then it is a good indicator that something is amiss"

"Any evidence for this assertion that more people want executions because prisons have libraries and gyms?"

Feedback.

That said I think Daniele is on the nail re "a distraction".

Tue, 2011-08-02 10:35 — Just Me (not verified)

@Span Ows

""Know"? Simple, but I'm not telling you (LOL)"

Good comeback, but unfortunately that's not how argument and debate- which tends to employ evidence- works.

And

"Any evidence for this assertion that more people want executions because prisons have libraries and gyms?"

"Feedback."

Ditto.

"I would say if a country treats its pensioners worse than it treats its prisoners then it is a good indicator that something is amiss"

Yes, I probably agree with this, more or less, but why conflate the two? Improving the lot of pensioners is not contingent upon executing criminals, is it? Let's hope not.

And, yes, it's a distraction, as others have said. No doubt that's the idea.

Tue, 2011-08-02 12:56 — Sam Gisoad (not verified)

"The loopy fascist left on here are so against the death pen but when it comes to slaughtering a human life in a mother's womb they get hysterically frothy and demand death.

So they want the guilty to live but the innocent to die? "

(To the tune of the spam song): Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll....Troll.

Please no one take this clumsily cast bait....

Tue, 2011-08-02 12:59 — Foz (not verified)

Span Ows
Which prison have you been in? Ah... you have not. Thought so.

Sat, 2011-11-26 10:08 — justicex84 (not verified)

Wars are either defensive or aggressive. But, in either point of view they are originated and conducted on the assumption that man has a right, for just cause, to take away the life of a man. For it needs no argument to convince anyone, however obtuse, that man cannot rightfully kill a thousand or a million of persons, if he cannot lawfully kill one! I wonder not, then, that peace-men are generally, if not universally, in favour of the total abolition of capital punishment.

Sat, 2011-11-26 10:09 — justicex84 (not verified)

How exactly is capital punishment right? Why should we KILL people who KILL other people to show that KILLING is wrong? it doesn't make sense and is illogical! CORRECTION:We don't kill people to show that killing people is wrong. Even with no sanction, most folks know that committing murder is wrong. The moral confusion exists because some accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal. For those, like some anti-death penalty folks, who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty murderers committing that slaughter. They would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer. This is what the anti-death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution). For such anti-death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution). Some anti-death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating killing (murder) with killing (execution).

Tue, 2011-08-02 15:13 — Span Ows (not verified)

@Foz
"Which prison have you been in? Ah... you have not. Thought so."

Hmmm, that ellipsis wasn't very long was it, a nano second between. Yes I have , three different ones. They shall though, remain unnamed.

Tell me, do you get used to being so wrong? Does it happen often? I suspect so but I'll let you answer.

Tue, 2011-08-02 15:28 — Daniele1

"just a squibble"
(If you are for real), thanks for illustrating my point.
Just come back from Rome.Forget the guillotine. Too quick. How about wild beasts tearing criminals apart in the local stadiums?That would distract the populus from their problems, like poverty and squalor, teach the criminals a lesson and feed the local zoo animals for free.Hang on, how about making them fight one another,the criminals that is, to the death? It has been done before and it worked. These criminals didn't re offend I can tell you!

Wed, 2011-08-03 20:00 — andyg (not verified)

A correct assessment of the word 'civilised society' can be tested by the way it treats its prisoners.

Wed, 2011-08-03 20:06 — andyg (not verified)

I would much rather a thousand guilty men go free than to hear of an innocent man hang.

Mon, 2011-08-01 12:37 — Jack Simpson (not verified)

It's all very well saying it's not a deterrent, but can you honestly say that there are no murder victims who are now in their graves who might, just might, have been alive today had we had capital punishment? The kind of murderer who is so used to prison that it is no longer a deterrent may just think twice before casually taking life if we had the death penalty. While the idea of innocent people being executed is heartbreaking, no less abhorrent is innocent people being the victims of casual murder committed by those anesthetized to prison that would otherwise not occur. Take the murderers of Ben Kinsella. Is it really logical to say that his murderers would have been no more scared of death than they were of prison? I don't accept that it brutalizes society - keeping some of these ghastly individuals alive, festering away, while their victims are dead, denigrates us a society, in my view. Anyway, it's academic; it won't be reintroduced barring some exceptional and unexpected event or turnaround in political opinion in the future. The focus needs to be on toughening the framework of life sentences for murder, which is rightly less lenient than it once was, but I still can't understand why many murderers often serve 15-20 years in prison. What is the reasoning behind a 15 or 20 year tariff for 50 years loss of life?

Mon, 2011-08-01 12:50 — SolomonL

"The kind of murderer who is so used to prison that it is no longer a deterrent may just think twice before casually taking life if we had the death penalty."

No. That's precisely what is meant by the phrase "the death penalty is not a deterrent". If you actually look at places where capital punishment is still in place there is no evidence that it significantly reduces crime rates (e.g. Texas).

Your argument creates a false dichotomy: either the prison system as it currently exists, or the prison system as it currently exists plus the death penalty. Why not prison reform? Why not stricter parole terms? You may well be right that "prison is no longer a deterrent" for some individuals, but you fail to consider the possibility that this is because we make very little effort to reform the individual while they are incarcerated.

As for: "What is the reasoning behind a 15 or 20 year tariff for 50 years loss of life?" Constructing a legal system on the basis of "justice" (see: "vengeance") ultimately only increases criminality and creates a political race to the bottom in which politicians compete to be tougher on crime. It doesn't work and every argument for it ends up collapsing into emotive platitudes ("Well, if your family were murdered..." etc.).

Tue, 2011-08-02 17:31 — guy_debord

I love it when the trolls pile in on this site to give their tuppence on "serious" issues like capital punishment and immigration.

It's like watching a monkey trying to solve a Rubick's cube.

Mon, 2011-08-01 12:54 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

Those who kill aren't motivated by the chance they'll escape punishment.

Those who don't aren't dissuaded simply by the chance they will be punished.

Most murderers haven't the capacity to understand the gravity of their actions.

As a society, we must.

Mon, 2011-08-01 12:57 — Lou (not verified)

Those who want capital punishment should be prepared to mete out the sentence and then live with the consequences of that.

We condemn Iran for it's atrocious treatment of people and yet people here want to do the same.

Take a leaf out of Ameneh Bahrami's book, blinded and disfigured by acid she refused the 'eye for an eye' punishment and refused to pour acid into the perpetrators eyes as retribution. It could easily have been a death sentence she was meting out.

If we impose the death sentence on people we have no more moral high ground than the people we denigrate most of all for abusing human rights and inflicting such punishments under the guise of Shariah law.

Rather hypocritical isn't it that the moral outrage the majority have over the Middle East treatment of prisoners is nothing other than a moral crusade for justice over here?

@Jack Simpson, if we had the death sentence - where do you think the Northern Ireland peace process would be now if we had exacted capital punishment on the Guildford Four, the Maguire 7 and other such high profile miscarriages of justice?

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:01 — swatantra

Of course its not a deterrent. That's not the point. Its about Justice, and the right to life. A cold blooded calculating murder for money, say, is said to be different from that of a provoked and goading and belittling and a moment of madness. But the result is the same, a loss of life, which in some cases probably didn't deserve being around for the hate and hurt and anger that it bought with it.
But who are we to judge? What is the point in say a life sentence for life of locking a murderer and throwing away the key and them rotting away in a cell? It brings no satisfaction to anybody let alone the memory of the victims.
A quick and speedy despatch would please all including the perpetrator.
The one reservation that stops many from opting for the death sentence is :that you may have made a mistake in the verdict. But mistakes are very few these days with pin point forensic technology around. Mistakes very rarely happen.
I have a feeling that Dave and Nick and Ed will chicken out and have their excuses ready just prior to any big vote in the House.

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:03 — Yvonne (not verified)

I have been engaging in extensive research on the history of the death penalty in Britain this summer. From the evidence that I have gathered, I am confident to say that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Both the Select Committee Report 1929/30 and the Royal Commission in 1953, shows that the rate for murder in countries who had abolished capital punishment had fallen. Murder is a crime of passion, and even the premeditated ones are a result of extreme circumstances. When committing a crime, the evidence shows that the perpetrator does not think or care for the punishment, therefore it not being a deterrent. It is the certainty of being caught that deters people, and in the case of murder, people are generally not in a rational frame of mind. Imprisonment was there to contain the most dangerous of criminals and reform them back into society. I will not even go into detail about the effects capital punishment has on the executioners and their families, the miscarriages of justice and the moral reasons against the death penalty.

Sun, 2011-08-07 11:49 — Mr Magoo (not verified)

@ian.edwards@skinnylegs.me.uk
"I think the argument put up by many people for no death penalty are two-fold:

1. Its not a deterrent - I Agree.

2. Its uncivilized - I Disagree. "

I like the way you disingenuously ignore the other major point that many have made for opposing capital punishment: that criminal justice is- and will remain- far from infallible. How can this square with any notion of justice in capital punishment?

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:20 — Insane Mango (not verified)

Funny how we're told by some that in this time of 'economic crisis', the public doesn't want to hear about (the very valid issues of) Hackgate as there are more 'important' things to discuss/do, and yet, some of those self same charmers would happily rant about this issue- fortunately a non-starter- til the end of time. And isn't it strange how the Sun has picked up on this?

Thu, 2011-08-04 22:59 — almanc (not verified)

@swatantra nandanwar

You are making a life choice for other people. You go and ask your average lifer, at beginning of their sentence or the old men who've been in since they were young and ask them, "do you want to die", make it into a survey, and publish the results on here, if it's over 50%, I'll shut up.

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:34 — Hugo Daddy (not verified)

"But mistakes are very few these days with pin point forensic technology around. Mistakes very rarely happen."

You do realise that CSI isn't a documentary, right? That it's pretty much science fiction? Forensic science is still a long way off being "pin point."

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:37 — Sassan (not verified)

Death penalty is inhumane and wrong. It actually increases murder rates by creating a cycle of violence. As an American, I am ashamed we are the last civilized western nation to still have the death penalty.

Mon, 2011-08-01 13:56 — suburbanmonk

the fact that its even raised its head again is a sad indicator of britsh society. I wonder how pro-death sentance supporters would feel if they were on death row and they new they were innocent.

This country is becoming more right wing all the time first torture now this what a shame.

Mon, 2011-08-01 14:22 — swatantra

Its more inhumane to lock a professed murderer away for life and see them degerate both physically and mentally. Of course some people may get satisfaction of sorts from seeing that delcine into senility. Murder rates are not really inluenced one way or the other, because killing someone is the ultimate taboo for the vast majority of people. They do not cross that line, whatever. But some individuals are prone and disposed to kill because of their mental makeup, but they do know the difference between right and wrong. Like Breivik, they could plead insanity for what good it will do them.
There is a difference between the State killing an individual through execution for crimes and an individual acting against another individual through malice, because it would be the collective will of the people to decide on the right to take away life.
And as said before, mistakes rarely happen. he verdict is usually the right one.
And its not even a 'political' issue, because both the pro and against lobby have members on the Left and Right. Its an Open Question.

Mon, 2011-08-01 14:35 — tuttifrutti (not verified)

'A quick and speedy despatch would please all including the perpetrator.'
In that case if we really want to punish the perpetrator then let them fester, if to kill them would 'please' them so much.
If the death penalty was brought back would it lead to a reduction in the conviction rates as jurors may not want to put someone to their death, and could reduce the likelihood of ever getting justice.

Mon, 2011-08-01 14:36 — Stu (not verified)

Wouldn't the victims of the crime rather see the culprit be imprisoned until death and forget all this xbox and PS3 in the cells, we're talking hardcore prison, no luxuries etc... and when we say life we mean it!

Mon, 2011-08-01 15:03 — Attrition47

Do the devotees of ritual murder envisage Bliar, Broon, Cameron et al as worthy of it? After all they've slaughtered more people than anyone since Richard Nixon and Henry Kisinger.

Mon, 2011-08-01 15:39 — Bayonet Pete (not verified)

BARRY GEORGE
BARRY GEORGE
BARRY GEORGE
BARRY GEORGE
BARRY GEORGE

Mon, 2011-08-01 15:50 — Bruce Bruce (not verified)

@satantra nandanwar "As said before, mistakes rarely happen. The verdict is usually the right one."

Oh, well that's good enough for me then. I mean, if you get accused for murder, you're probably a dodgy guy anyway who deserves to be hanged, right?

Mon, 2011-08-01 15:52 — Diane (not verified)

BABY P

Mon, 2011-08-01 16:10 — Lou (not verified)

@Swatantra

You say mistakes rarely happen....take a look at this roll call then...hardly a few is it.
http://www.innocent.org.uk/

@Diane

Even for Baby P, I don't agree with capital punishment. What of Sally Clark jailed for the murder of her babies yet innocent? What of so many others who you would see killed yet they were innocent?

Mon, 2011-08-01 16:19 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

Mistakes Can and do happen.

It is still possible (at least in Scotland) to convict a man of murder without a shred of physical evidence. The Jodi jones case springs to mind. Her boyfriend was convicted of her brital killing on circumstantial evidence alone.
I'm surprised that this is even back on the agenda to be honest. Is there really any great degree of support for the death penalty here? Personally i doubt it.

Mon, 2011-08-01 17:01 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Now that's what you call reality television! For a price, the full process should be screened on satellite television. After the watershed, naturally. Ads shouldn't be a problem. Terminal publicity!
Can't wait until the first single mother is hauled out onto the scaffold. Teresa May as Home Secretary must be on camera before the execution. After the event she must justify the state termination of a life. And same applies to all subsequent politicians holding the office of Home Secretary
First black teenager! First motorist found guilty of criminal negligence involving the death of a child or police officer. Or traffic warden; almost forgot!
Serial killers and rapists who kill! The Queen's subjects must be salivating at the very thought.
Retain the silken rope for Lords - hemp necktie for everyone else.
And the public should have a vote on a pardon. Otherwise, it wouldn't be democratic. And if an innocent party is found to have been executed, a member of the government in power at the time, senior ministerial level, must take his/her place on the scaffold.
The public will then vote on whether this unfortunate should be executed.

Hang It!

Mon, 2011-08-01 17:11 — Span Ows (not verified)

The usual comments. Those that believe it uncivil and a sad indicator of Britsh society etc should dwell on the "holiday camp with locks" prisons we have: I wouldn't mind betting many of those clammering for the Death Sentence to be reintroduced do so because they see most prisoners treated better than many pensioners. No worries about bills to pay, "3 squares" a day, no limit on hot water, "paid gym membership", library and computer use, free videos dvds etc. Give them hard time, working "breaking rocks" or something. No benefits, make it a real punishment.

Wed, 2011-08-03 01:49 — Dorina Lisson (ACADP) (not verified)

Most morally decent people are cynical about politicians who support the barbaric punishment of death, for their political advantage.

Mon, 2011-08-01 17:22 — Acamar (not verified)

This article is a waste of space. There is absolutely no chance that MPs would vote for the return of a death penalty.

Thu, 2011-11-10 20:22 — Charlotte Hallam (not verified)

How exactly is capital punishment right? Why should we KILL people who KILL other people to show that KILLING is wrong? it doesn't make sense and is illogical! What's more, it isn't right - God is the only person with the right to take a life, since he gives life. I sincerely hope that the death penalty never returns to this country!

Mon, 2011-08-01 17:28 — Julia Harris (not verified)

If the liberal left get there way we'll have Sharia Law running parallel in the UK, so any Gays beware as they would be hung and any Adulterers would be shot or stoned to death.

Mon, 2011-08-01 18:07 — Moist Brain (not verified)

@Span Ows

Grow up. I know you miss the News of the World, but try, for once, to have a thought of your own. Prisons are not like that. Pensioners are often badly treated, yes, but this is not related to whether or not the UK has the death penalty, or indeed, to the nature of UK prisons at all. Why conflate the two?

@Julia Harris How's that then?

Wed, 2011-08-03 08:47 — Freeman2

Jack Simpson writes, '...can you honestly say that there are no murder victims who are now in their graves who might, just might, have been alive today had we had capital punishment?'

No, but we can definitely say there are people who are now NOT in their graves who were wrongly convicted of murder, including all those fitted up for IRA terrorism.

Mon, 2011-08-01 19:26 — Light Shaft (not verified)

[I]f someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don't honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.
Said it all for me. Remember those women got prisoned for poisoning killing there babies by accused by an incompetent doctor who condemned one guy just seeing him on the TV.
If you kill some one whose inocent How are you going to put it right??

Mon, 2011-08-01 19:47 — Lox (not verified)

I think Cameron's response was pretty reasoned, and most people would feel the same I think.

It's wrong to kill people unless they're an immediate threat to you: that goes for the state as much as for individuals. Anyone who deliberately murders someone else should spend the rest of their life in prison. It's a revolting crime.

And once they're there, they should have the opportunity to reflect on what they've done. Everyone deserves a chance at redemption, whether in a spiritual or a psychological sense.

Mon, 2011-08-01 19:56 — Ian5

The deterrent argument is flawed, consider the recidivist rate for prison. Should we close all prisons?
Capital PUNISHMENT, that word says it all. Crimes should first and foremost be punished. Then we can talk about reforming the prisoner/criminal. Ideologically i believe in and support Capital Punishment for certain classes of crime, but I'm also ideilogically opposed to abortion, yet support choice. Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley stand between me and wholehearted support. The burden of proof would need to exceed current legal requirements. But the execution of Saddam Hussein was a just and right punishment for Halabja and other crimes.

Mon, 2011-08-01 21:48 — Cempreepsyfet

The loopy fascist left on here are so against the death pen but when it comes to slaughtering a human life in a mother's womb they get hysterically frothy and demand death.

So they want the guilty to live but the innocent to die?

Sheeeez: there's just no point arguing with fascist left nutters.